Where I differ is on the grounds of common experience. And I think illusory is a horrible world. What about mass murder is illusory? Sure, the "mind" thinks it's murdering, and "minds" think they are witnessing others dying, but it's still mass murder.

Mass Murder is illusory. So is following the path of Buddha.

Saying that "it's only mind" in no way relieves one of having to experience the causes and results of such actions. In our experience, it is not "somehow less real" if one understands the primacy of mind. Nor does the experience of the unfindability of existence obviate ethical discipline.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:In our experience, it is not "somehow less real" if one understands the primacy of mind. Nor does the experience of the unfindability of existence obviate ethical discipline.

But it's not just the issue of "mind" but "minds." There is a certain cohesiveness about common experience. For example, this very discussion: I see your words, you see mine, we have a record of what's been said and what's not been said, we can agree that we're having this discussion, etc.. If we can come to that agreement, what makes this discussion not real? How can two minds miles apart cooperate in the same illusion?

What about 9/11 is illusory?

What about 10,000 fans attending an Elton John concert is either karmic or illusory?

Nevertheless, it appears, while having no existence. Only a Fully Enlightened Buddha can comprehend the various workings of Karma, etc., but it should be noted that this conversation, and these sentient beings, can only appear precisely because they do not exist.

If you're interested in "conventional existence," shared Karma, Etc., I suppose "Abidharama" would be the proper thing to study. It's not a primary concern of Nagarjuna.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:Sentient Beings are Illusory, too.So is this discussion.

But that doesn't answer my question: how can two (or multiple) illusory minds participate in an illusory discussion miles apart?

I'm not asking if it is illusion; I'm asking how, if all is illusion, there can be "happenings" and consensual participation in those "happenings."

Ultimately nothing at all happens.

But it appears to, like people sharing a dream.

It's useful to think of the notion of "before and after analysis". Before analysis, there certainly appears to be something going on. But after a thorough analysis, nothing has been found that can be said to be real or existing. It's like a magician who cuts a lady in half - it looks like he did it, but after analysis you can see that there never was the cutting of the lady. It never happened.

Epistemes wrote:I'm not asking if it is illusion; I'm asking how, if all is illusion, there can be "happenings" and consensual participation in those "happenings."

I understand what you're asking, but I think it's outside the scope of this thread, and also outside the scope of what Nagarjuna is concerned with. That's why I made the Abidharma suggestion, though I'm not expert and am not even sure you fill find an adequate answer to your question.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

This is what is called in philosophy a 'modal view,' a view that concentrates on the qualities of experience rather than on the essence of experience. To seek the essence of matter is to enter the world of speculation, to go beyond our empirical experience; to deal with the qualities of matter is to confine ourselves to phenomena, to experience. It is interesting to note that this modal view of matter is shared by some modern philosophers, Bertrand Russell perhaps being the best known among them. It is this modal view of reality which also informs much contemporary thought about matter. Scientists have come to recognize matter as a phenomenon, to recognize that it is impossible to arrive at the essence of matter, and this has been substantiated by the discovery of the infinite divisibility of the atom.

This modal view of reality has another important implication: Insofar as we take a purely phenomenological and experiential view of reality, of existence, the question of the external world--in the sense of a reality existing somewhere 'out there,' beyond the limit of our experience--does not arise. Insofar as the external world gives rise to the experience of matter, it is just the objective or material dimension of our experience, not an independent reality that exists in itself.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:Sentient Beings are Illusory, too.So is this discussion.

But that doesn't answer my question: how can two (or multiple) illusory minds participate in an illusory discussion miles apart?

I'm not asking if it is illusion; I'm asking how, if all is illusion, there can be "happenings" and consensual participation in those "happenings."

How if you make this as a new topic. I think many of us could participate or give some light on it. The problem if I can see lies on the understanding of what is illusion, why we call it illusion, why it can never be real and always illusion.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

swampflower wrote:However to travel further along the path and to develop true compassion it becomes important to realize the true nature of existence as dependent origination.This does not mean that things do not exist, things rather do not exist with permanence. As the old saying goes "Nothing lasts forever".On the other hand there is no non-existence of things, things do not vanish or are not annihilated. Rather things change as a result of the cause and effect relationship.

Well....Nagarjuna doesn't really say that.

Nagarjuna says, quite frankly, that things do not exist at all, though they seem to exist. In fact, It is precisely because "things DO vanish" or "things ARE annihilated" that they don't exist in the first place. If they did exist, they would be immune to change, for example.

The gross level of cause and effect can be seen as a continuum of change, surely. But there is a flaw in understanding that this continuum exists, when one examines on a more subtle level. There is no becoming, etc. which we can point to as a "mode of existence."

Nagarjuna observed that all the things are exist and not exist. If you attach of their empty realm then you are just a nihilist. If you attach of their form realm, then you are deluded. All things are have both form and emptiness.

All entities are physical or abstract (obvious).The thing that determines whether something is a physical or abstract entity is consciousness (obvious).Therefore all entities are objects or subjects (obvious).Therefore consciousness is the root of subjects and objects (obvious).Therefore all entities are one taste in consciousness (obvious).Therefore all entities are just energies in experience (obvious).Therefore nothing can be distinguished from the milieu (obvious).Therefore consciousness has no boundaries (obvious).Therefore consciousness is non-finite (obvious).Therefore consciousness is unfindable (obvious).Therefore consciousness has no essence (obvious).Therefore there is no consciousness (obvious).

The reason we can't sustain knowledge of this obvious reality is because we are habituated to build complex constructs and stories and become addicted to and lost in them (obvious).Therefore anything constructed is a self (obvious).Therefore the way to free ourselves from the process of habituation is to see the selves are like dreams (obvious).